Results of the protein crops FG26/27 November 2014 – Budapest, Hunagry

Content

• The challenge

• Task of the focus group

• The route to the end report

• The results

• The conclusion

The challenge: EU balance of protein rich feed

Raw materialEU production EU consumption self-

sufficiency

products proteins products proteins %

Soyabeans / meal 1.189 452 34.134 15.904 2,8%

Rapeseed and sunflower seed / meals 27.481 5.213 19.721 6.329 82,4%

Pulses 3.045 670 2.800 616 108,8%

Dried forage 4.056 771 3.900 741 104,0%

Miscellaneous 2.877 654 5.859 1.260 51,9%

sub-total 38.648 7.760 66.414 24.850 31,2%

fish-meal 398 275 599 433 63,5%

total 39.046 8.035 67.013 25.283 31,8%

Source: FEFAC/PROLEA, 2012 data

72% of feed

stuff is EU

produced

Value of soya

• High protein content

• High (ileal) digestibility of lysine

• Low competitiveness of European alternatives

• Availability of large and reliable volumes to the industry

Quality of protein crops

Crop Amino acid content of protein (%) Protein content of

Lysine Methionine Cysteine (M+C)/L

co-product (%, DM

basis

Soya 6.3 1.4 1.6 48 53%

Rapeseed 5.5 2.1 2.2 79 40%

Sunflower 3.9 2.0 1.8 97 33%

Lupin 4.5 0.6 1.2 40 42%

Pea 7.2 1.0 1.4 33 49%

Faba bean 6.3 0.8 1.2 32 52%

Maize 3.1 2.1 2.0 132 34%

Wheat 2.9 1.6 2.0 124 41%

EU soya imports and CBOT prices

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

5

10

15

20

25

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

€p

er

ton

Mil

lio

n t

on

nes p

er

year

Year

soyabean import - EU-27

soya bean meal import - EU27

value per ton of meal (€)

Worldwide soybean production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

50

100

150

200

250

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

soybean production -world

soybean area (M ha)

Ratio digestibility/price levelD

igesta

ble

pro

tein

(g/€

)

Time

Soy meal

Rapeseed meal

Peas

Maize meal

Lupins

Source: Kamp et al, 2008

Importance of price competitiveness

Task of the focus group

• Analysing the demand for protein crops in Europe

• Assessing the potential of relevant crops and forage which are rich in protein.

• Looking into the value of protein crops in the crop rotation

• Suggesting how to increase productivity and protein content of protein crops

The route to the end report

• Experts from 11 EU countries

• Workshop Oss September 2013 (Agrifirm)

– Constraints and opportunities

• Housework:

– Elaboration on constraints

• Workshop Valladolid January 2014 (CARTIF)

– Innovation challenges

• Reporting

The results

• Constraints and opportunities• Breeding chain and genomics

• Yield improvement and stability

• Transition: developing or adapting a value chain

• Crop diversity

• Mixed cropping

• Extension and farmer’s unfamiliarity with protein crops

• Diversification of the livestock chain

• Sustainability and transparency demands.

Diversity in Europe

Mediterranean

Oceanic or Sub-oceanic

Nordic

Continental or Sub-continental

Scale level and value chain

Indication of yield gap: crop competetiveness

crop actual increased yield (t/ha)

yield benchmark

(t/ha) wheat maize

Soya 2,7 3,4 4,3

Rape 3,1 3,1 3,9

Sunflower 2,2 2,7 3,4

Lupin 1,0 4,1 5,1

Pea 2,7 4,8 6,0

Field bean 2,7 4,5 5,7

Alfalfa 40,2 43,6 54,5

Remarks:

•Rough indications

•Large variety from region to region

Considerations from the group

• Breeding:

– Commercial breeding and market: chicken and egg

– Public breeding to fill the gap

• Agronomy

– Mixed cropping

– Protein crops and rotations

– Nitrogen and soil management

• Extension

– Adoption depending on financial returns

– Learning curve support through exchange of information

Consumers and sustainability

• Non-GM could be supporting the transition

• Indirect land-use change effects to be considered

• Integral sustainability on inputs (water, nutrients, surface, energy)

• GHG emission reduction?

Status in research on PC

• Large number of EU or country funded research projects identified

• Competitiveness and yield seldom the primary issue

• What is the cohesive strategy behind these projects?

Fail factors of innovation systems

• Knowledge infrastructure;

• Physical infrastructure;

• Legislation and regulation;

• Values, norms and symbols;

• Interaction;

• Market structure

Knowledge infrastructure

• Knowledge needed on:

– Breeding and genetic diversity

– Agronomy on crop and farm level

– Potential of improvements in processing

• Distinguish between monogastrics and ruminants

• Combining knowledge: institutes, companies, farmers

Physical infrastructure

• Farm machinery

• Processing capacity installed

• Storage capacity

• Scaling up production and processing

• On-farm production of protein crops

• Leap in development: from local to industrial

Values and beliefs

• Non-GM: no issue from the viewpoint of breeding

• Non-GM: valuable as stepping stone in the development

• Protein crops could support sustainability of intensive farming systems

• European protein crops can be competitive

Co-operation and interaction

• Coherent R&D program required to tackle the challenge

• All chain partners and stakeholders to be involved

• Making use of knowledge throughout the value chain

• Exchange information, experience and knowledge

Market structure

• European future price level for protein crops

• Different scale levels depending on markets

– How will consumer prerence develop?

• EU: low home-grown volumes and large demand

– How to gradually match supply and demand?

Conclusion: integral approach

Feed industryBreeding

industry

R&D and

governmentsFarmers

Coherent and supported

long-term R&D program

NGO’s